Why it is important some people are unhappy

[Basil]

I think someone should point out as well, for the sake of the original analogy, that Sarah Palin was an attempt to pander to the Republicans' "base" and they're getting shit now for running the worst campaign in modern history.

FWIW

True, but the boost to the McCain campaign initially was significant -- enough that it helped close the distance with the Obama campaign in the polls. The problem, thank goodness, was that once Palin had to deliver the goods, she couldn't, the economy turned, McCain failed to impress the base, etc.

In many ways, the failure of the campaign is analogous to the failure of a big budget movie that has a great marketing campaign to generate interest but fails to keep that interest once it's released.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Aside from the fact that Trek is personally important to some people there is a very valid reason that an unhappy fanbase is critically important.

The success of a new Star Trek venture is akin to the success of a political campaign. If you don't motivate your base and get a large turnout of your base you won't win.

You failed right there, in your premise. Sorry.

There's a minimal resemblance between the factors undergirding success in film production and marketing and those involved in a national political campaign.

You can make a list of what you see as resemblances that's a mile long, and it won't make the analogy a good one.

This is why the money-spending, high profile part of the marketing campaign supporting a typical movie release is about one to two months long while Presidential campaigns drag on for two years now.

If people choose to be unhappy, let them.

 

[trekkerguy]

You have this pro-Star Trek crowd that seems afraid of even the slightest dissension concerning this film. I just wonder why?

.

blaXXer, anti-everything

Haha, I didn't realize I quoted someone quoting you.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Some people confuse finding something tedious or a nuisance with being afraid of it. That may be a useful defensive rationalization, but it's a peculiar one.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

I saw it nine times in theatre and loved it, not for VFX(thought they were great), but because I think it to be one of the best and up-close stories of family survival and of personal change. Not in a very deep form, but a very effective way of putting that story in front of the masses in a cool scifi flick. Not sure what the bit about our culture is though...

I'm glad you enjoyed the movie and found something meaningful in it, but the general consensus was that it was an FX/ 'splosion fest with very little substance. People don't expect much more from their summer SF blockbusters, so if that's all the new Star Trek movie turns out to be, it's still likely to be very successful. That's what I meant.

 

[dillon3001]

It's just the fact that it is anoying to hear people obsess over pointless minutiae.

Then what exactly is a message board for?

Poster 1:

Man that Trek XI looks great!!!

Poster 2:

Nah... I disagree.

Moderator:

Well. Everything has been discussed. Thread closed.

You have this pro-XI crowd that seems afraid of even the slightest dissension concerning this film. I just wonder why?

I can tell you exactly why both sides (Pro-XI and Anti-XI) are afraid.

Its the unknown of it all.

There has not been a Trek movie since 2002, and no series on air since ENT was canceled. Who knows what can happen if this new movie does well? Maybe a new series on TV, more movies or something. I'm afraid to consider the possibilities of what could happen to the franchise if the movie DOESN'T do well...

Trek is very important to (hopefully) everyone who visits these boards, and right now its in the hands of folks (JJ Abrams and co) who are new to working in the Trek universe, so its natural to be a little apprehensive on how the end product of this movie is going to turn out. We cant really tell how the movie is going to be in its entirety after watching 2 minutes or so of trailer.

I think we all want to see a rejuvenation of the franchise and worry what will happen if the new movie tanks. Thats where i think the bulk of the consern is coming from. Thats my 2 cents on it.

Now how bout a space beer?

 

[trekkerguy]

I saw it nine times in theatre and loved it, not for VFX(thought they were great), but because I think it to be one of the best and up-close stories of family survival and of personal change. Not in a very deep form, but a very effective way of putting that story in front of the masses in a cool scifi flick. Not sure what the bit about our culture is though...

I'm glad you enjoyed the movie and found something meaningful in it, but the general consensus was that it was an FX/ 'splosion fest with very little substance. People don't expect much more from their summer SF blockbusters, so if that's all the new Star Trek movie turns out to be, it's still likely to be very successful. That's what I meant.

Ok, that makes plenty of sense and I don't disagree.
What I will say though for most summer SF blockbusters is they
usualy have alot more substance to them than people give them credit for
simply because many(not all but many) of them simply aren't that kind
of thinker and don't see it.

And what did people expect? I think more people need to watch originals before seeing remakes.
There wasn't a whole lot of substance to the first "WoTW" movie. Alot of it is left in the background.
The book is a different story. But for a film it did just what it was meant to and infact incorporated
more into it from the novel than the original film did.

 

[Theonethatis]

If we go by a political campaign. Then it's not about the hardcore base. Its about the independents and those who haven't voted before. We need to motivate those who feel an affinity or nostalgia for star trek, but are not fans. These are the kind of people Lapsis was talking about. There are a lot of them out there and they have been waiting for some good Star Trek.

But more importantly is the youth vote. They haven't come out for Star Trek since 1991. This is what will keep Trek alive for the next generation. Remember when we were young and we marveled at the magic and wonder of Star Trek?? We need to bring that back again. Let our teenagers experience it.

The Star Trek party has fallen out of favor with the mainstream. and like every political party when it loses elections it need's to change and find it's relevance. I believe that J.J. our chief campaign strategist is trying to do just that. And from what I saw from the peoples reaction to the trailer, it is working.

We don't need the base, For the majority of the base is already going to vote. What the base needs to do is to canvass for our party. We need to extol the virtues of this new candidate to our non trekker family and friends. We need to let people know that
the old and boring Star Trek party is over and we are building a new party. And our candidate promises hope and change from the same old same old. This is the bases job, we need to do this for Trek to live on.

Political campaigns are not won by the base, they are won by swing voters and independents. This is the same for this movie. We need the independents and people who have been to young to vote to come out and cast their ballot on May 8th.

My name is Philip Wilson and I approve this message..

 

[datas_cat_spot]

There seems to be two camps on this board now - those that are unhappy about how the new film will screw with established Star Trek, and those that tell those people to get over it. Aside from the fact that Trek is personally important to some people there is a very valid reason that an unhappy fanbase is critically important.

The success of a new Star Trek venture is akin to the success of a political campaign. If you don't motivate your base and get a large turnout of your base you won't win. Many believe that a big reason McCain lost the presidential election is that the Democrat base was supermotivated, and the Republican base was undermotivated. Grabbing new voters or bringing people over from the other side is important, but it isn't how you win. (I DO NOT want this thread to degenerate into a political discussion, I'm simply using politics as an analogy). Star Trek isn't much different. Whether it is a new show like Enterprise or a movie like Nemesis that both fell short, success depends on repeat business by the fanbase. With fan support established you can work on expanding it.

Take The Dark Knight as an example. It didn't make all that money on one-time tickets sales. It made so much money because of return sales. I saw the film three times in the theaters myself. In order for Star Trek to have a future on the big screen or small screen this movie has to do better than be profitable; it has to make much money. The way it will do that is with repeat business from the fanbase, and first time viewers that simply think it is so good it is worth paying for a second time.

I suspect that even the people that are genuinely mad at this effort will go to see the film once, at least out of curiosity. But if they don't, and if the base does not turn out more than once, the film probably will not be as successful as it needs to be. That is why Abrams and crew have always tried to be so clever with their language about this film, i.e. not a reboot, not a reimagining, more of an origin story, etc. They knew that they had to keep longtime fans in their camp. The problem is that the product doesn't seem to reflect their descriptions, so far.

Enough of the movie has leaked out that we know that they've tinkered with things a great deal. Now, whether that bothers you is not the point. The fact is a lot of fans are bothered by it, and that's the last thing Abrams needs. He needs an energized fanbase that will support this thing so that it can succeed. You build upon your base, not in spite of it.

So, feel free to give people a hard time for their hard feelings about how the filmmakers have messed with canon and ignored thirty years of design heritage. But by downplaying fan displeasure you ignore a looming problem, in my opinion. Just ask Brannon and Braga.

You seem to think Dark Knight was so successful because fanboys made many repeat visits.

Now it's true, they certainly did. However, it is the average Joe who spread the word and saw it multiple times that created such a huge success.

I also suggest you take a quick look around. The fanbase is energized. Incredibly energized. And the ST fanbase is already spreading the word like fanboys did with TDK.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

There might be some analogy to the campaign attacks.

It seems to be the equivalent of Obama accusing McCain of being George Bush II and McCain equating Obama's new look and call for change to being a commie with ties to terrorists and radicals.

 

[AudioBridge]

Hmm, I guess I'm just going to have to agree to disagree with most of the responses to my post. I think Enterprise was a deliberate attempt to appeal to people out of the Trek fanbase. The type of theme song was changed, the sex appeal was ramped up further than any trek before, etc. I've been watching Star Trek all my life, and I almost gave up on that show before Manny Coto came in and improved it.

Nemesis served the same function. They brought in a director with no Trek background and inserted pointless action items like off road vehicles in a future with transporters and warp engines. I think we can all agree that Nemesis was failure from a business sense, even if some Trek fans liked it.

It seems that despite my plea some people did turn this into a political discussion, but I still think the analogy is apt. McCain specifically ran trying to woo democracts/independents (that's what he's always done), and when he realized he was alienating his base he picked Palin in an obvious effort to appease them. Did it work? Nope. He ended up losing on both sides.

Star Trek has been around forty years, with a fanbase built over forty years. If that isn't akin to a core political consitutency then what is? If you simply got everyone that has enjoyed a Trek movie or show over the past forty years in the theater how could it not succeed? But without it, how difficult will it be to succeed?

 

[AudioBridge]

[/quote]I also suggest you take a quick look around. The fanbase is energized. Incredibly energized. And the ST fanbase is already spreading the word like fanboys did with TDK.[/quote]

I simply don't see that, either on the internet or in my personal encounters. But I hope you're right.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I think Enterprise was a deliberate attempt to appeal to people out of the Trek fanbase.

Of course it was.

And why do you think they're still trying to appeal to people outside of the Trek fanbase, despite the failure of "Enterprise" to enlarge the viewership?

You figure it's because no one out there are as smart as fans on TrekBBS?

You figure it's because they don't learn anything from experience, and that's why everyone in the movie business is poor?

No, it's because they know from experience that the Trek fanbase isn't extensive enough to make a movie profitable. They also know that pleasing the fanbase does not generate the enthusiasm or word-of-mouth to draw in the non-fans who are necessary for them to make money.

Frankly, I'm a little surprised that Paramount thought it was worthwhile to invest a lot of money in Trek at all. That having done so they then decided it was time to stop pandering to trekkies, however, doesn't surprise me in the least.

 

[scotthm]

Abrams and crew have always tried to be so clever with their language about this film, i.e. not a reboot, not a reimagining, more of an origin story, etc.... The problem is that the product doesn't seem to reflect their descriptions, so far.

Yes, that does seem to be the problem. They've built up the hopes of a certain segment of fans who want continuity, and as more leaks out, the more these hopes seem to be dashed.

It's just the fact that it is anoying to hear people obsess over pointless minutiae.

Then it seems to me that you're hanging around on the wrong part of the Internet.

---------------

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's just the fact that it is anoying to hear people obsess over pointless minutiae.

Then it seems to me that you're hanging around on the wrong part of the Internet.

And that would be...what, the part that involves computers?

 

[scotthm]

It's just the fact that it is anoying to hear people obsess over pointless minutiae.

Then it seems to me that you're hanging around on the wrong part of the Internet.

And that would be...what, the part that involves computers?

You've been around enough to draw your own conclusions.

---------------

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Then it seems to me that you're hanging around on the wrong part of the Internet.

And that would be...what, the part that involves computers?

You've been around enough to draw your own conclusions.

---------------

I've been around long enough to draw aurochs on the walls of caves, sonny.

 

[trevanian]

And that would be...what, the part that involves computers?

You've been around enough to draw your own conclusions.

---------------

I've been around long enough to draw aurochs on the walls of caves, sonny.

Say that like it's a good thing, but do it in spite of your standing around here.

 

[AudioBridge]

I think Enterprise was a deliberate attempt to appeal to people out of the Trek fanbase.

Of course it was.

And why do you think they're still trying to appeal to people outside of the Trek fanbase, despite the failure of "Enterprise" to enlarge the viewership?

You figure it's because no one out there are as smart as fans on TrekBBS?

You figure it's because they don't learn anything from experience, and that's why everyone in the movie business is poor?

No, it's because they know from experience that the Trek fanbase isn't extensive enough to make a movie profitable. They also know that pleasing the fanbase does not generate the enthusiasm or word-of-mouth to draw in the non-fans who are necessary for them to make money.

Frankly, I'm a little surprised that Paramount thought it was worthwhile to invest a lot of money in Trek at all. That having done so they then decided it was time to stop pandering to trekkies, however, doesn't surprise me in the least.

Well, perhaps we're not talking about the same fanbase. Firefly had a fanbase of a few hundred thousand people (based on DVD sales and other criteria) and that was enough to get a movie made. Star Trek probably has millions of people that could be considered fans, but if we use Firefly as a model then we could at least say with some assurance that there are 1,000,000 hard core trek fans. That's probably a very low number, but let's go with it. If each of them went to the new movie twice then that's at least $20,000,000 in ticket sales. Let's say a film brings in total $100,000,000. The 20 million isn't an insignificant portion of that.

I've never said that the powers that be shouldn't try to bring in new viewers and make new fans of Trek. But alienating a built-in (i.e. money spending) fanbase isn't good business. If Trek XI is as successful as The Dark Knight it just might bring in a large percentage of new fans that would go to a sequel or (even better) tune into a new Trek tv show, but I doubt Batman comic subscriptions have gone up exponentially in the last year.

Pandering to Trekkies (as you put it) and acknowledging your fanbase are two different things. I agree with you that the former won't assure success, but the latter puts you on the road to it.

 

[davejames]

I saw it nine times in theatre and loved it, not for VFX(thought they were great), but because I think it to be one of the best and up-close stories of family survival and of personal change. Not in a very deep form, but a very effective way of putting that story in front of the masses in a cool scifi flick. Not sure what the bit about our culture is though...

I'm glad you enjoyed the movie and found something meaningful in it, but the general consensus was that it was an FX/ 'splosion fest with very little substance. People don't expect much more from their summer SF blockbusters, so if that's all the new Star Trek movie turns out to be, it's still likely to be very successful. That's what I meant.

Huh? From all the reactions I saw to WOTW afterwards, most people were upset that there WEREN'T more explosions.

The fans and general public expected to see a big war movie, and were disappointed to see it was more of a quiet Twilight Zone-style story that focused more on the characters while most of the action happened off screen.

Personally I thought THAT's what made it so cool and interesting, but obviously I was in the minority. lol